Abstract
Abstract For structural design engineers, there is an apparent gap in how the hydrostatic pressure is treated between the American and European systems. In API RP-2A, the beam-column equations treat the axial and bending capacities the same as there is no hydrostatic pressure. This is physically not correct, as member utilization is a combination of hydrostatic, axial, and bending actions. In contrast, the ISO and NORSOK beam-column equations include reductions of axial and moment capacities due to hydrostatic effect. In this paper, available actual test data are compared with the API and ISO capacity equations. A third set of capacity equations provided by Chen et al. is also considered. Unity check (UC) results show that, although API equations lack the proper hydrostatic reduction in axial/bending capacities, it is compensated by the separate checks of hoop buckling and ultimate strength. For engineering applications, similar member designs will be obtained by either the European or the American systems.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
